ANÁLISIS DE LOS MOTIVOS PARA PRACTICAR O NO ACTIVIDADES FÍSICAS EXTRACURRICULARES Y SU RELACIÓN CON EL AUTOCONCEPTO FÍSICO EN ESTUDIANTES CHILENOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las relaciones entre la práctica de actividad física y autoconcepto han sido establecidas en diversos estudios. Los objetivos fueron: describir la práctica deportiva extracurricular y los motivos para realizarla o no; analizar las relaciones entre los motivos para practicar actividades físicas extracurriculares y las dimensiones del autoconcepto físico, y evaluar si esta práctica introducía diferencias en el autoconcepto físico. Participaron 1773 estudiantes chilenos. Se emplearon el CAF y un cuestionario sobre práctica deportiva y motivos elaborado ad hoc. Los resultados indicaron que la cuarta parte de los participantes no realizaba actividad física. Los motivos alegados eran la falta de tiempo y de ganas. Quienes sí practicaban lo hacían como fuente de salud, para estar en forma o por diversión. Los motivos para la práctica se relacionaban con todas las dimensiones del autoconcepto físico. El hecho de hacer actividades extracurriculares de tipo físico introdujo diferencias en las dimensiones del autoconcepto físico. The relationship between physical activity and self-concept have been established in several studies. The objectives were to describe extracurricular sports practice and the reasons for it or not; to analyze relationships between the reasons to practice extracurricular physical activities and dimensions of physical self, and to assess whether this practice introduced differences in physical self-concept. 1773 Chilean students participated. CAF were used and a questionnaire on sports practice and reasons developed ad hoc. The results indicated that a quarter of the participants did not perform physical activity. The reasons given were lack of time and lack of interest. Those who do practiced did so as a source of health, for fitness or for fun. The reasons for the practice were related to all dimensions of physical self-concept. The fact of doing physical extracurricular activities introduced differences in the dimensions of physical self-concept.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".